WesWorld

Looking at the ancient picture I made way back then...

... the ship is 906 pixels long and the break is at 659 pixels. The midbreak should actually be at 72.7% so the simmed 70% is actually just laziness on my part (the same is true with the Nagato which I just measured at 72.8%).

Hmmm... The thing that just popped into my mind is that both the Nagato and Fuso are pre 1921 ships so the actual valid sims for those two ships are the SS1 sims and not the SS2 sims. Can't remember the exact thing, but the agreement back then was that we would only be using SS2 for ships after the start of a certain year (forgot which year; may have been 1925).

Still I should have paid closer attention to those and set the height so that the SS2 average freeboard matches the SS1 freeboard (which is 17.20 ft for the Fuso and 20.70 ft for the Nagato). Guess I need to tweak that on both ships. *grumble grumble*

Thanks for explaining.

I think your Approach on simming those rockets is valid. Modifying the hull of your elderly design, however, is not covered b our rules. You have to stick to it even if you are wiser today. Redconning designs while rebuilding is a no go, I think. Feel free to bring it up on the board as an official request. If everybody agrees your modifications are okay because the original sim is heavily flawed, then you may go ahead. But I doubt there are major flaws in your original sim.

I guess many of us have old designs they are no longer fond of today or that could have been simmed better. Still we have to draw a lone somewhere. Getting away with it in the past is no argument to allow it in general. My opinion of course...

Why do anything other than scrap thirty year old battleships?

On general principles I find myself in agreement with Rocky's sentiment; on technical points I find myself in agreement with Hoo. The stars must be aligned...

I know that some of my first sims were badly laid out, but retconning them at no cost is not an option. Now, if you wanted to rebuild them at cost, that is another matter, which is where Rocky's argument comes to the fore.

I go from this...

Quoted

710.00 ft x 108.00 ft x 30.00 ft (normal load)
216.41 m x 32.92 m x 9.14 m

... and this...

Quoted

(for 17.20 ft / 5.24 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment -2.72 ft)

... to this...

Quoted

717.88 ft / 710.00 ft x 97.00 ft (Bulges 108.00 ft) x 30.00 ft (normal load)
218.81 m / 216.41 m x 29.57 m (Bulges 32.92 m) x 9.14 m

... and this...

Quoted

Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 21.65 ft / 6.60 m
- Forecastle (20%): 18.65 ft / 5.68 m
- Mid (70%): 18.65 ft / 5.68 m (11.60 ft / 3.54 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15%): 11.60 ft / 3.54 m
- Stern: 11.60 ft / 3.54 m
- Average freeboard: 16.78 ft / 5.11 m

... and which is based off this...


As I said I screwed up and missed the mark by 0.42m and the break is actually at 72.7% so that needs to be corrected. And as I said I am not modifying anything about the hull. I'm just correctly simming it now. I would still use the same picture as above with exactly the same hull shape (except the bow which I am allowed to do with the Partial Reconstruction).

Actually looking at you battleships, it annoys the hell out of me that you are all over the place with the breaks. With the Koning Frederik II design (no longer in SAE service) you used the forecastle break (which is even more wrong than using the quarterdeck. Unless you make 4 of the 5 turrets superfiring, I'd call that a major no-no). With the Mauritius you have the midbreak at 75% but you use the quarterdeck break instead. With the South Africa you use the mid break and with the Mocambique you use the quarterdeck again. Also with the Koning Frederik II you go from a 5,50 m to a post modernisation freeboard of 5,75 m, Mauritius goes from 5,83 m to 7,17 m and South Africa goes from 6,45 m to 6,92 m. Draughts do not change on any of those designs so I guess you were modifying the hull of your elderly design.

Quoted

I guess many of us have old designs they are no longer fond of today or that could have been simmed better.

If I wanted to make her better I would have scrapped the old and given the names to four new Yamato-like ships. To me it is all about correctness so it was a really bad idea to take a look at your ships cause I now have this urge to yell at you to correct them... and I am now kinda hesitant to see what was done with other ships.

Quoted

Still we have to draw a lone somewhere. Getting away with it in the past is no argument to allow it in general.

To me it is that either everything in the past is corrected or it is allowed in general. Cause I find it quite unfair that you are telling me to pay 75% for it while I'm fairly sure that you only paid 50% for all your freeboard alterations on those ships.

Quoted from "HoOmAn"

Modifying the hull of your elderly design, however, is not covered b our rules. You have to stick to it even if you are wiser today. Redconning designs while rebuilding is a no go, I think. Feel free to bring it up on the board as an official request. If everybody agrees your modifications are okay because the original sim is heavily flawed, then you may go ahead. But I doubt there are major flaws in your original sim.

I guess many of us have old designs they are no longer fond of today or that could have been simmed better. Still we have to draw a lone somewhere. Getting away with it in the past is no argument to allow it in general. My opinion of course...

If I understand correctly, Walter's not actually changing the freeboard any - he's just changing the manner in which Springsharp delivers the output. If he were changing the design (lengthening or altering the height of the freeboard), then it should be covered by the refit... but unless I misunderstand, that's not actually what is happening here: there's no 'retconning' involved.

Quoted

If I understand correctly, Walter's not actually changing the freeboard any - he's just changing the manner in which Springsharp delivers the output. If he were changing the design (lengthening or altering the height of the freeboard), then it should be covered by the refit... but unless I misunderstand, that's not actually what is happening here: there's no 'retconning' involved.

Well, as I said I already did it wrong with the freeboard due to an oversight. SS1 only has an average freeboard height, not the more detailed freeboard of SS2. Back then I tried to translate it to SS2 with the sim that is visible in the ency but as I already said it is a pre 1921 ship so the SS1 is the valid sim, not that SS2 sim (it is only there because Wes decided to go against the agreement and sim all his ships with SS2). The below sim should be correct with the average freeboard at 17.20 ft and the mid break at 72.7% (rounded up to 73%) to match the picture. I should also look into the Nagato to correct that.


Fuso, Japan Senkan laid down 1914 (Engine 1946)

Displacement:
33,321 t light; 35,507 t standard; 39,435 t normal; 42,578 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
717.96 ft / 710.00 ft x 97.00 ft (Bulges 108.00 ft) x 30.00 ft (normal load)
218.84 m / 216.41 m x 29.57 m (Bulges 32.92 m) x 9.14 m

Armament:
12 - 14.17" / 360 mm guns (6x2 guns), 1,400.00lbs / 635.03kg shells, 1946 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 3 raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns in single mounts, 55.12lbs / 25.00kg shells, 1946 Model
Quick firing guns in casemate mounts
on side, all forward
16 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in heavy seas
20 - 2.95" / 75.0 mm guns (10x2 guns), 12.00lbs / 5.44kg shells, 1946 Model
Automatic rapid fire guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread
36 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (6x6 guns), 2.00lbs / 0.91kg shells, 1946 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
56 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns (14x4 guns), 0.57lbs / 0.26kg shells, 1946 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 18,026 lbs / 8,176 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 137
168 - 4.7" / 120 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 14.0" / 356 mm 475.00 ft / 144.78 m 12.00 ft / 3.66 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 103% of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
2.00" / 51 mm 475.00 ft / 144.78 m 29.00 ft / 8.84 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 10.0" / 254 mm 14.0" / 356 mm
2nd: 4.00" / 102 mm - 4.00" / 102 mm
3rd: 1.00" / 25 mm - 1.00" / 25 mm
4th: 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm -
5th: 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm -

- Armour deck: 5.50" / 140 mm, Conning tower: 18.00" / 457 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 65,359 shp / 48,758 Kw = 24.00 kts
Range 10,000nm at 18.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 7,072 tons

Complement:
1,398 - 1,818

Cost:
£4.246 million / $16.984 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,311 tons, 5.9%
Armour: 14,203 tons, 36.0%
- Belts: 3,421 tons, 8.7%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,019 tons, 2.6%
- Armament: 4,188 tons, 10.6%
- Armour Deck: 5,125 tons, 13.0%
- Conning Tower: 449 tons, 1.1%
Machinery: 1,632 tons, 4.1%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 13,824 tons, 35.1%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 6,115 tons, 15.5%
Miscellaneous weights: 1,350 tons, 3.4%

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
54,246 lbs / 24,606 Kg = 38.1 x 14.2 " / 360 mm shells or 9.9 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 5.8 ft / 1.8 m
Roll period: 18.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 57 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.49
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.14

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.600
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.57 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.65 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 45 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 21.88 ft / 6.67 m
- Forecastle (20%): 18.88 ft / 5.75 m
- Mid (73%): 18.88 ft / 5.75 m (11.83 ft / 3.61 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15%): 11.83 ft / 3.61 m
- Stern: 11.83 ft / 3.61 m
- Average freeboard: 17.20 ft / 5.24 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 78.9%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 110.2%
Waterplane Area: 50,370 Square feet or 4,680 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 106%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 197 lbs/sq ft or 963 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.00
- Longitudinal: 1.00
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate




... but in order to make Hooman happy... This way I am not changing anything regarding the hull... and if he wants it, I can turn it into a springstyle file as well.
(and damn! I could not remember where the miscellaneous weights was located and finally found it on the very first page...)

Fuso 1946 rebuild, Japan Battleship laid down 1946

Displacement:
33,321 t light; 35,653 t standard; 39,435 t normal; 42,304 t full load
Loading submergence 1,556 tons/feet

Dimensions:
710.00 ft x 108.00 ft x 30.00 ft (normal load)
216.41 m x 32.92 m x 9.14 m

Armament:
12 - 14.17" / 360 mm guns (6 Main turrets x 2 guns, 3 superfiring turrets)
16 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns
20 - 2.95" / 75 mm AA guns
92 - 1.57" / 40 mm guns
Weight of broadside 18,520 lbs / 8,400 kg
168 - 4.7" / 120 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
Belt 14.00" / 356 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 85% of normal area
Main turrets 11.79" / 299 mm, 2nd gun shields 4.00" / 102 mm
AA gun shields 1.00" / 25 mm, Light gun shields 1.00" / 25 mm
Armour deck 5.00" / 127 mm, Conning tower 18.00" / 457 mm
Torpedo bulkhead 2.00" / 51 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 65,379 shp / 48,772 Kw = 24.00 kts
Range 14,563nm at 15.00 kts

Complement:
1,399 - 1,818

Cost:
£23.679 million / $94.718 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,315 tons, 5.9%
Armour: 13,650 tons, 34.6%
Belts: 2,949 tons, 7.5%, Armament: 4,188 tons, 10.6%, Armour Deck: 5,037 tons, 12.8%
Conning Tower: 451 tons, 1.1%, Torpedo bulkhead: 1,025 tons, 2.6%
Machinery: 1,633 tons, 4.1%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 14,373 tons, 36.4%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 6,115 tons, 15.5%
Miscellaneous weights: 1,350 tons, 3.4%

Metacentric height 6.6

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation & workspaces is adequate

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.09
Shellfire needed to sink: 44,536 lbs / 20,201 Kg = 31.3 x 14.2 " / 360 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 7.2
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 56 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.45
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.13

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.600
Sharpness coefficient: 0.42
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 6.38
'Natural speed' for length: 26.65 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 45 %
Trim: 50
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 77.5%
Relative accommodation and working space: 117.8%
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 107%
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1.00
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 200 lbs / square foot or 976 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.03
(for 17.20 ft / 5.24 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment -2.72 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

... I just looked at those South African battleships again and I will admit that that was a very bad thing to do. I'm sorry to say this Hooman, but that is some really questionable things being done there with raising the freeboards during the modernisations on those designs...


Nagato should be like this with average freeboard at 20.70 ft / 6.31 m and the midbreak at 72.8% to match the original SS1 freeboard and the picture. Considering that she's already back in service for quite a while, no other aspects are changed so the sim below is exactly the same as the one in the encyclopedia except for the (now corrected) freeboard. If mods agree to this correction I will replace the current rebuild sim with this one.



Nagato, Japan Senkan laid down 1916 (Engine 1937)

Displacement:
38,864 t light; 40,868 t standard; 45,915 t normal; 49,954 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
809.57 ft / 800.00 ft x 97.00 ft (Bulges 108.00 ft) x 31.00 ft (normal load)
246.76 m / 243.84 m x 29.57 m (Bulges 32.92 m) x 9.45 m

Armament:
8 - 16.14" / 410 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1,763.70lbs / 800.00kg shells, 1933 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
20 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns in single mounts, 55.00lbs / 24.95kg shells, 1932 Model
Quick firing guns in casemate mounts
on side, all amidships
20 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in heavy seas
16 - 4.13" / 105 mm guns (8x2 guns), 34.00lbs / 15.42kg shells, 1932 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
24 - 1.97" / 50.0 mm guns (12x2 guns), 4.00lbs / 1.81kg shells, 1935 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 6 raised mounts
24 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns (8x3 guns), 0.57lbs / 0.26kg shells, 1935 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 15,863 lbs / 7,195 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 120

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 15.0" / 381 mm 490.00 ft / 149.35 m 12.00 ft / 3.66 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 94% of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
2.00" / 51 mm 490.00 ft / 149.35 m 30.00 ft / 9.14 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 18.0" / 457 mm 10.0" / 254 mm 14.0" / 356 mm
2nd: 4.00" / 102 mm - 4.00" / 102 mm
3rd: 2.00" / 51 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 2.00" / 51 mm
4th: 1.00" / 25 mm - -
5th: 1.00" / 25 mm - -

- Armour deck: 5.75" / 146 mm, Conning tower: 18.00" / 457 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 140,000 shp / 104,440 Kw = 28.91 kts
Range 11,002nm at 18.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 9,086 tons

Complement:
1,567 - 2,038

Cost:
£6.335 million / $25.340 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,343 tons, 5.1%
Armour: 15,316 tons, 33.4%
- Belts: 3,797 tons, 8.3%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,088 tons, 2.4%
- Armament: 3,897 tons, 8.5%
- Armour Deck: 6,037 tons, 13.1%
- Conning Tower: 497 tons, 1.1%
Machinery: 3,880 tons, 8.5%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 16,525 tons, 36.0%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 7,051 tons, 15.4%
Miscellaneous weights: 800 tons, 1.7%

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
63,028 lbs / 28,589 Kg = 30.0 x 16.1 " / 410 mm shells or 9.9 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.14
Metacentric height 6.1 ft / 1.9 m
Roll period: 18.3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 53 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.46
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.05

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.600
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.41 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 28.28 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 21.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 24.94 ft / 7.60 m
- Forecastle (20%): 21.94 ft / 6.69 m
- Mid (73%): 21.94 ft / 6.69 m
- Quarterdeck (15%): 14.94 ft / 4.55 m
- Stern: 14.94 ft / 4.55 m
- Average freeboard: 20.70 ft / 6.31 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 85.9%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 146.8%
Waterplane Area: 56,755 Square feet or 5,273 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 108%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 201 lbs/sq ft or 983 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.03
- Longitudinal: 1.00
- Overall: 1.01
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

...I'm confused, I don't see any forecastle freeboard changes in the South African ships, I do see a change in the Average freeboard numbers but I don't understand the difference in how springstyle calculates that from later versions of springsharp. I don't think changing a mid break point for free or less than the cost that the rules say is necessary seems fair, particularily when I intended my shell weights on my 15" guns to be heavier and that was denied. We all have design mistakes and most of us have to work around them. Now, if you want to convince me that the cost for a midbreak change is to much I'm willing to discuss that but as someone who's been burned by a design mistake more than once I'm not convinced we should be making exceptions.

Forgive me, but are these proposed changes being driven by the desire to have the stats of the sim match a particular drawing? I am growing confused... ?(

Well, we are talking your designs here, not mine. But I understand the confusion. However, a 50% rebuild allows to modify a ships bow. As you can see from the files and pics I made use of this option. A newly shaped bow that has a higher stem adds to the calculation of average freeboard, increasing it without modifying the ships hull otherwise. For Reunion changes were more drastic but still within the rules of a 50% rebuild. The bow was modified and raised while I also modified the ships superstructure as allowed. The battery deck above the weather deck was freed from its guns and extended to the sides to the same level as the outer shell of the hull. As a result she got a new weatherdeck and her freeboard, defined as the height from water to weatherdeck, became raised. The break is 2,4m because that's deck height for all RSAN Units right from the beginning.

I cannot tell why the break was set at 75% but I guess there was a reason. It's been years and I dont have springsharp/springstyle available. But what I do remember is that we had a public discussion about the Reunion and the way they finally turned out after refit. The drawings were not even developed by me first place, they were a result of some design contest in 2009 that resulted in kitbashing by other players. But my SS sims were never challanged. Coming up with it now, six years later, is a bid odd...

And - whatever happened with my ships during rebuild there is no reason I should not question your doing here....

Quoted

...I'm confused, I don't see any forecastle freeboard changes in the South African ships

The Hertog Alexander was changed from a SS1 sim to an SS2 sim and that is where the change is. So it goes from a sim that only has an average freeboard to a sim that thas a raised forecastle which is actually a very wrong way to sim it. SS now assumes that A and B turrets are on the same deck level as X and Y turret so the barbettes in the sim for A and B turrets are actually shorter in the sim than they should be. The way Hooman simmed that one, A turrets should be superfiring and B turret should be a double superfiring turret (using SS3 term). Simming it that way with the raised forecastle gives him extra hull strength to use on other aspects of those ships.

It is the same with the Koning Frederik II class. When it was changed from an SS1 sim to and SS2 sim, it also uses a raised forecastle. A and P turret should be superfiring and B again should be a double superfiring turret.

Quoted

I do see a change in the Average freeboard numbers but I don't understand the difference in how springstyle calculates that from later versions of springsharp.

SS1 has average freeboard. How it is calculated and what kind of freeboard it assumes does not matter because it is average. SS2 has various points where you enter the freeboard but it also has an avarage freeboard. Average freeboard to me is the same for both SS versions so if you make an SS2 version of an SS1 sim, the average freeboard should be exactly the same for both sims. If not then you are doing serious changes to your hull (and which is why I corrected my sims to match the SS1 freeboard).

Quoted

I don't think changing a mid break point for free or less than the cost that the rules say is necessary seems fair, particularily when I intended my shell weights on my 15" guns to be heavier and that was denied.

The SS1 is the valid sim for both the Fuso and the Nagato. I go from those to the SS2 rebuild sims so I am not changing a midbreak point. It only changes compared to the invalid SS2 sim.

Can't remember what the issue was with your 15" guns though...

Quoted

Well, we are talking your designs here, not mine.

Well, I drag your designs into the discussion because you accuse me of something I didn't and you did do. I am not sure what it was but a few months ago you accused Brock of doing something wrong with one of his sims but when I looked at your ships I noticed that you did exactly the same thing wrong. Now you accuse me of doing something that I (now) did not do but it is something that you have done yourself.

... But that is now something that I have come to expect of you... Accusing someone else of doing something while you have done it yourself...

Quoted

However, a 50% rebuild allows to modify a ships bow. As you can see from the files and pics I made use of this option. A newly shaped bow that has a higher stem adds to the calculation of average freeboard, increasing it without modifying the ships hull otherwise.

The Hertog Alexander had an average freeboard of 5,23 m. With the SS2 version the average freeboard is changed to 6.37 which is an increase of 1.14 meters.
Mauritius had an average freeboard of 5,83 m and goes to 7,17 m, an increase of 1.34 meters. Koning Frederik II from 5,50 m to 5,75 m. South Africa 6,45 m to 6,92 m. Mocambique 6,60 m to 6,76 m.

I take the Nagato sim and raise the stem by 6 feet and the average freeboard increases by less than half a foot. If I want to increase the average freeboard by 1.34 meters I need to add almost 60 feet of height on my stem to achieve that. That is about the same as the height of the sides of my Yamato class battleships added to the existing 24.52 ft stern of the Nagato. I'm fairly sure that in most cases the freeboard was increased just to get the seaboat rating above 1. And as I mentioned earlier I find that quite questionable. Looking at the pictures my guess is that the most that the average freeboard should increase is 10cm compared to the original sim. You are only changing the bow and that is only a small part of the ship and only raises the average freeboard by a tiny bit.

Quoted

And - whatever happened with my ships during rebuild there is no reason I should not question your doing here....

The thing is that you are accusing me of doing something that I am not doing at all while you on the other hand have done it. I am setting my freeboard up like this in order to be correct, not to make my ship better. You however set up your freeboard in order to make your ship better, not to be correct. So apparently it is okay for you to power up your ships like that but it is not okay for me to sim my ship to be correct.

So if I understand correctly we are having a spirited discussion on making a ship match a drawing, and the proposed change makes no change at all to the combat capability of the ship, and the discussion is whether or not it requires a 75%? M'kay, carry on then. Heads back to World of Warcraft

Whoa guys, cool it down a bit, okay?

Quoted

So if I understand correctly we are having a spirited discussion on making a ship match a drawing, and the proposed change makes no change at all to the combat capability of the ship, and the discussion is whether or not it requires a 75%?

With the old SS1 ships there are actually 2 things that make the ship better with the rebuild. The first being that the ship's engines are simmed at 1946 instead of 1914 which gives it a significant bump and second is that you go from a ship that was simmed with SS1 to a rebuild ship that is simmed with SS2. You can see the difference posted above between the SS1 rebuild version and the SS2 rebuild version. But that will be true for all ships that were simmed with SS1 and then simmed with SS2 for a rebuild version, not just mine. Apparently according to Hooman, he and others are allowed to significantly improve their ships using that way and I am not.

Quoted

Heads back to World of Warcraft

Not a bad idea. I probably should do something similar, although for me it is a heavily modded Skyrim...

Between the two Fuso options offered, the Metacentric height lowered, gun survivability goes up marginally, torpedo survivability goes down, steadiness goes up marginally, seakpeeing marginally up.
To be honest the differences are mostly 1% either way except for the non-critical hits which vary slightly more.

Looks to me a storm in a teacup, I see nothing here that is increasing any fighting potential. It's all pedantics. Does Walter really need to bother fussing over such a small change? Does anyone else have to jump up and down over a such a small change?
In any case its obvious modernising old SS1 reports it obviously not without pitfalls. We avoid further such pitfalls by not introducing SS3 (not that it ever entered a fully functioning state). I'm not sure I back any side here, the changes are so small it doesn't really seem the hassle caused. Although I have seen odd dreadnought sims too over time.

Whether Hoo has committed misdeeds, I'm not sure until I've had time to look for myself. Perhaps someone should try resimming for double-checking. It's does seem rather ironic to me that given the heated arguments we've had from time to time that antics like RAs fraud went unnoticed for the large part, except for the few very obvious cases.

To be honest it seems like a lot of trouble for 30 year old designs. I've run into similar cases when I look at my older ships. Should I give them a major refit, just a minor refit to extend their life a bit or scrap them and build a new design using the old guns? The first option seems expensive given the capability's of newer battleships and the increasing opinion that CV's and heavy cruisers are more economical for the various roles of BB's. Option three also seems expensive because, why design a new battleship when I already have the Oberoth design? Why spend on more design work unless I can say design an Oberoth with a 4th 16" triple turret? Therefore option two seems the most logical, extend their life and add more AA and electronics and relegate them to secondary/less important theatres. I certainly won't be adjusting their mid breaks or freeboards because that is certainly getting into a costly refit.

I agree, we should cool down. I'll do the first step.

First of all I want to state that I did not accuse you of anything, Walter. If I did, I appologize. When you presented your design I just asked for Details on the rockets (we have no rules here but I found your approach valid and easy to understand) and I asked if an intentional modification of a designs mid break would require a 75% rebuild (it is not really stated in our rules).

Note here that I did not cirtizise design changes that come with the step from SS1 to SS2 and the use of new tool features but an intentional modification to a design in order to correct something that you do not like today but that is not a design flaw that renders the original design invalid. I think there is a difference here. You may disagree.

Of course you are right that I my own designs have to be challanged against my own words. It's been years ago and I can't remember any details but I think I never deliberately/intentionally modified my designs to make them better other than increasing their capabilities by a rebuild. This, of course, also came with a step from SS1 to SS2 in many cases and thus included some "natural" changes. I think I never just re-simed an older design when we decided to proceed with a newer tool. I only resimed when I had a reason to do so - for a rebuild for example. This results in d original/rebuild designs that cannot easily be compared because they include intentional modification due to rebuild (meaning an increase in capability) and non-intentional modifications that came with the new tool generation.

Was I wrong? Dunno. I was never challanged on this for many years. Feel free to do it now. It's been 6 years of real life but if I made a mistake I/we need to decide if I have to redcon my designs.

Quoted from "HoOmAn"

First of all I want to state that I did not accuse you of anything, Walter. If I did, I appologize. When you presented your design I just asked for Details on the rockets (we have no rules here but I found your approach valid and easy to understand) and I asked if an intentional modification of a designs mid break would require a 75% rebuild (it is not really stated in our rules).

The closest thing I see in our rules appears to be the 25% "Changes to superstructure (i.e. lengthening or widening a deck...)" Granted, it's talking about superstructure rather than changes to the hull, but a 25% rebuild feels to me to be about the right price for the level of work being done.